DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

property, being land or building or both, shares\nand securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account.\n(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the\nincome chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset or\nexpenditure in relation to an event or occasion of the value referred to\nin clause (b) of sub-section (1

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

property, being land or building or both, shares\nand securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account.\n(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the\nincome chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset or\nexpenditure in relation to an event or occasion of the value referred to\nin clause (b) of sub-section (1

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT.. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

property, being land or building or both, shares\nand securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account.\n(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the\nincome chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset or\nexpenditure in relation to an event or occasion of the value referred to\nin clause (b) of sub-section (1

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

property, being land or building or both, shares\nand securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account.\n(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the\nincome chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset or\nexpenditure in relation to an event or occasion of the value referred to\nin clause (b) of sub-section (1

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1), CHENNAI vs. REPCO HOME FINANCE P LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

properties , fresh sanction plans issued by local municipal authorities etc. to substantiate that the loans were granted/utilised for the purposes of construction of additional floors etc to the borrowers. The matter is remitted back to AO and the assessee is directed to produce all details before the AO. The AO shall in remand proceedings after considering the submissions

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

property, being land or building or both, shares\nand securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account.\n(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the\nincome chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset or\nexpenditure in relation to an event or occasion of the value referred to\nin clause (b) of sub-section (1

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

property, being land or building or both, shares\nand securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account.\n(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the\nincome chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset or\nexpenditure in relation to an event or occasion of the value referred to\nin clause (b) of sub-section (1

JESUDASON BIJI ,CHENNAI vs. OFFICE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER INT. TAXN WARD1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

houses and the total consideration received during F.Y. 2013-14 is Rs.3,46,12,700/-. And the assessee had deposited Rs.50,00,000/- in 54EC bonds on 31.12.2013 and hence was eligible for deduction u/s.54EC. However, in respect of the claim of deduction u/s.54F, AO noted that the investment was made in acquisition of a vacant land and construction

DCIT, CEN CIR 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Property Developers. The assessee firm is also involved in the business of money lending which is carried out in the name & style of M/s Jayapriya Financiers. The assessee also operates a guest house and theatre by the name of M/s Jayapriya Guest House and M/s Jayapriya Theatre respectively. A search action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted upon

DCIT, CC2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Property Developers. The assessee firm is also involved in the business of money lending which is carried out in the name & style of M/s Jayapriya Financiers. The assessee also operates a guest house and theatre by the name of M/s Jayapriya Guest House and M/s Jayapriya Theatre respectively. A search action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted upon

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, THIRUVANNAMALAI

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, THIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI,

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns

THAJUNNISSA BEGUM ,CHENNAI vs. ITO,NON CORPORATE WARD -10(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 196/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mrs. Thajunnissa Begum, Income Tax Officer, No. 3, Prasanna Vinayagar V. Non Corporate Ward -10(4), Kovil St., Chennai. 235, Poonamalle High Road, Chennai – 600 029. [Pan: Adcpt-2186-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2023

section 54F of the Act, we find that the observations of the Assessing Officer is devoid of merits, because the assessee never claimed exemption u/s. 54F of the Act, but has claimed exemption u/s. 54 of the Act. Therefore, we reject the observations of the AO. To sum up, from the facts available on record, we are of the considered

VIPIN KUMAR,HOSUR vs. ITO, SALEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.487/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shri Vipin Kumar, The Income Tax Officer, Hig – 5, Avalapalli Housing Board, V. Central Circle, Brindavan Nagar, Phase Vii,Tnhb Salem. Hosur – 636 109. Pan : Aafpb 9262 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Housing Board, v. Central Circle, Brindavan Nagar, Phase VII,TNHB Salem. Hosur – 636 109. PAN : AAFPB 9262 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Lakshmichand Nahata, FCA ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 05.05.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 15.07.2016 आदेश